Libertarian senator shoots his message in the foot

David Leyonhjelm must extricate his libertarian views from a uniquely American gun lust if he is to have any impact on Australian politics, writes Grant Wyeth.

Last week senator-elect David Leyonhjelm of the Liberal Democrats used the one-year anniversary of the rape and murder of Jill Meagher to advocate for increased gun liberalisation in Australia - something he believes would have prevented her from being attacked.

Even before reaching the Senate, it seems that Leyonhjelm is going to use every opportunity he can to try and advance this cause. And as an extreme position in the Australian culture, the media looks like it will gladly play along with him.

Already you can see that most articles concerning Leyonhjelm and the LDP refer to them as "gun-loving" or "pro-gun". Leyonhjelm may believe that this is advancing the cause of gun liberalisation and classical liberalism in general, but in fact the very opposite is true.

During the election campaign I directed a friend to the LDP website. No other policies made it into her comprehension. Seeing the party's guns policy turned everything else white. She now simply refers to the LDP with disdain as "The Gun Party." This is will be the psychology of most of the Australian public, which will have a deafness to anything else Leyonhjelm has to say.

Due to the bulk of libertarian thought coming from the United States, and the foundation of many of these ideas as being a major part of American national mythology, there is a great entanglement of libertarianism and American nationalism that has little context here in Australia.

While the American Constitution and its amendments are a work of incredible foresight, there is a tendency to view these documents as infallible, which is highly dangerous.

It's fair to say that the Second Amendment may have been an historical necessity - it may have even been a comment on the role of government and its tendency to abuse its power - but as a libertarian, Leyonhjelm should be aware of the concept of "unintended consequences".

The unintended consequence of the Second Amendment has been to create a culture of gun-lust in the American psyche, a culture that reverts to the gun, rather than diplomacy, as an acceptable approach to dispute.

Many adherents to this perspective believe that an armed populace will neutralise itself, and that US gun laws aren't liberalised enough to create this balance.

The argument seems to be similar to a Realist perspective in International Relations. The Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) of the Cold War prevented any direct violence between the US and the Soviet Union; the thinking is that this will work between individuals as well.

While it is true that India and Pakistan have not been to war since both acquired nuclear weapons, the fact that two countries tied so closely through history, heritage, language and culture are in a constant state of suspicion significantly hampers the potential of the region. It is a significant factor in the poverty that exists in both countries.

Translating this relationship to individuals in suburban neighbourhoods will have a similar impact on cooperation and prosperity. And no doubt a culture of constant suspicion will create an arms race between individuals, as it has done between states.

There is a tendency within libertarian thought to take a purely objective stance on all human creativity. The gun is therefore seen as values neutral, which leads to statements such as: "It's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people."

However, the gun was invented with an intention to harm. While it is very true that violence can be committed through numerous instruments, guns are an instrument that has harm as its primary purpose. With knives, ropes or hammers, harm is not in their design; it is not their initial purpose.

We cannot feel positive about this human invention the way we can be proud of our other technological wonders. I believe we need to look at the gun in this subjective manner. When you hold an invention of this purpose in your hand it is making a statement about your approach to life beyond self-reliance.

Embedded in this libertarian perspective is an unhealthy assumption about human nature, the belief that the only way violence can be nullified is through the threat of violence. The comments about Jill Meagher are an example of this.

This outlook on life begins from a position that cannot begin to embrace the psychology of nonviolence. It is limiting in its assessment of humanity's capabilities, and impacting on the idea of voluntary cooperation, a core tenet of libertarian philosophy.

While giving the state monopolistic powers over violence can, without robust democratic institutions, be dangerous, libertarians need to acknowledge that oppression cannot only flow from the state, that a culture of fear and suspicion within civil society can also be highly oppressive.

I believe that this outlook is acknowledge in the Australian mindset. There was a sense of cultural shame after the Port Arthur massacre. While prime minister Howard's guns buyback scheme was a government action, it was actual a response to something akin to "market demand".

Howard recognised the sense of guilt that the country felt. The massacre was the action of a lone gunman, but we felt a voluntary collective responsibility, not an enforced one.

This was a case of the nation (rather than the state) who felt that action was required. While I am frequently suspicious of national sentiments and their tendency towards negativity, Howard (in this case) correctly read the national mood in a positive and non-manipulative manner.

The gun doesn't play as significant role in our national mythology and therefore it was easier for the nation to recognise its negative impacts. Despite the US constantly shooting itself in the foot, the central role the gun has in its national mythology blinds the country to its destructive impact.

I believe that it is this entanglement of American nationalism and libertarian thought that informed Leyonhjelm's statement that it is an "objective fact" that armed teachers could have prevented the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Violence cannot be rejected with violence. It has not been a solution in Iraq or Afghanistan, it won't be a solution in Syria, and arming school teachers will not be a solution to school shootings. It will only perpetuate the culture. Children go to school to learn. What are they learning from a strapped teacher?

It is this cultural aspect that Leyonhjelm fails to understand.

If Leyonhjelm was to pay attention to the younger people who are drawn to classical liberalism, they place positive outcomes above dogma. They are urban and educated, interested in the causes of "the Left", but not their solutions. They are drawn to sites such as Bleeding Heart Libertarians and Real Liberals who have social justice at their core. They are consequentialist liberals rather than "natural rights" liberals. And they accept state intervention when it is able to achieve proven positive outcomes.

This is consistent with the local culture. There isn't the taste for purist libertarian concepts in the Australian psyche. There are certain social democratic institutions that the public are fond of (if they can function efficiently and effectively).

As a senator, Leyonhjelm will have an opportunity to raise awareness about areas of the state that are counter-productive to positive humanist outcomes - to promote the cause of liberty as the driver of diversity, opportunity and wealth-creation, and to smash the egregious myth that liberalism doesn't care for the poor and disadvantaged.

Guns will not be a cause Leyonhjelm will be able to advance, but if he maintains it as a central tenet of his party, he will hinder his ability to advance anything else.

Grant Wyeth is a freelance writer and political analyst. Follow him on Twitter @grantwyeth. View his full profile here.